Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Does our “need for speed” make our wi-fi suck?

orb.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 327 posts

Re: Does our “need for speed” make our wi-fi suck?

#281

Post by econ »

ashdksnndck wrote: post #112
marssaxman wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The house I live in was built with ethernet, but of the fourteen outlets the builders saw fit to include, not one is located where we can make use of it. The two devices in our house which use a wired connection are both plugged directly into the switch in our utility closet. (We do have one internet-connected device which permanently lives about an inch away from one of the ethernet sockets, but it is, ironically, a…

Some friends live in a rental that they’ve decorated well. It wasn’t until multiple visits that I realized they had run Ethernet throughout the house. You can get skinny Ethernet cables that bend easily. If you get some that match your paint, and route them in straight lines, those can be unobtrusive. Use tricks like running the cables along baseboards and other trim pieces. If you really want to minimize the visual…

I use to wire houses. (Here all wires go in tubes.) The absurdity of not adding a few empty tubes for later use endlessly amazed me.

I think I've done only one house where the owner wanted to be able to put speakers in every corner of every room on every floor with multiple possible locations for his stereo.

Then he wanted multiple cable tv connections per room, multiple sockets for landlines, Ethernet everywhere.

The speaker tube was left empty and a few short distance sockets didn't have wires in them.

It seemed excessive even to me but it isn't actually a lot of work to run 5 tubes in stead of 1. You might add 1-2% to the renovation bill. Even less for a new house.

The end result was wonderful. He could do his chores with music all over the house. Move his TV sofa bed or desk where ever he wanted.

Doing this after the house is finished is more expensive, it takes a lot more work and the result is inferior.

I think nowadays we should have an USB socket next to each power outlet that provides both internet and extra fast charging. In reality I've never even seen such socket.

With a few small updates Android could switch off wifi and mobile networking and seamlessly switch to calling over wifi wired internet when you plug in the charging cable.

Who knows, maybe the mobile phone could even be a first class citizen in the landline network.

Re: Does our “need for speed” make our wi-fi suck?

#282

Post by cruffle_duffle »

chrneu wrote: post #132
lxgr wrote: post #66

> Many ISPs, device manufacturers, and consumers automate periodic, high-intensity speed tests that negatively impact the consumer internet experience as demonstrated. Is that actually a thing? Why would any ISP intentionally add unnecessary load to their network?

For what it's worth, I think most ISPs that do this will host their speed test in-network so their speeds are inflated. This benefits both the ISP and whoever is in charge of the speed test(like speedtest.net). So they're not really increasing their network load a measurable amount since the data never actually leaves their internal network. My ISP's network admin explained this to me one day when I asked about it. H…

That’s why Netflix has fast.com, which pulls actual video content, meaning it’s hard for the ISP to inflate the number.

(at least as per my understanding)

Re: Does our “need for speed” make our wi-fi suck?

#283

Post by ksec »

>The IEEE 802.11bn (Wi-Fi 8) working group has acknowledged the need for a shift in focus, framing the standard’s goals differently from past generations: not chasing ever-higher peak speeds, but improving reliability, lower latency (especially at the 95th percentile), reduced packet loss, and robustness under challenging conditions (interference, mobility).

For people who dont follow WiFi closely. While WiFi 8, or 7 or 6 all has the intended features for its release, they are either not mandated or dont work as well as it should. Instead every release was a full refined execution of previous version. So the best WiFi 6 ( OFDMA ) originally promised will only come in WiFi 7. And current WiFi 7 feature like Multi-Link Operation will likely work better in WiFI 8. So if you wanted a fully working WiFi 8 as they marketed it, you better wait for WiFI 9.

But WiFi has come a long way. Not only have they exceeded 1Gbps in real world performance, they are coming close to 2.5Gbps, maximising the 2.5Gbps Ethernet. And we are now working on more efficient and reliable WiFi.

Re: Does our “need for speed” make our wi-fi suck?

#284

Post by ndriscoll »

TiredOfLife wrote: post #251
PaulHoule wrote: post #2

I did some experimentation with UniFi hubs and came to the conclusion that if you can give each device its own WiFi channel that would be ideal -- contention is that bad and often an uncontended channel with otherwise poor characteristics will beat a contended channel that otherwise looks good. The other bit of advice that is buried in there that no-one wants to hear for residences is the best way to speed up your Wi…

> You might think it's convenient to have your TV connect to Netflix via WiFi and it is, but it is going to make everything else that really needs the Wi-Fi slower. There is other stuff to watch - like uhd bluray backups and those need more than the crappy 100mbps lan port can deliver.

If the playback device isn't terrible (though smart TVs probably are), 100 Mbps should still be adequate as long as the average bitrate stays below that (which I think is the case for almost all UHD blurays?) and you get close to the nominal speed. For example if it peaks at 120 Mbps, then you're only draining your buffer at 2.5 MB/s, so a 150 MB buffer gets you an entire minute of peak bitrate as long as it was full. A quick search suggests very few movies go above 100 Mbps for longer than a few seconds at a time and averages are usually below 80.

Re: Does our “need for speed” make our wi-fi suck?

#285

Post by ianburrell »

rpcope1 wrote: post #61

Honestly what's unsaid in a lot of this is that it would be really nice if there were more and wider ISM bands. So much makes use of 900Mhz, 2.4GHz and 5GHz in novel and innovative ways, that if the government and FCC really actually wanted to spark innovation including augmenting wifi performance, they'd stop letting telcos and other questionable interests hoard spectrum and release it as ISM (and no, they shouldn't…

WiFi 6E added 6 GHz spectrum bigger than 5 GHz. The problem is that not that many devices support it. I think it is required in WiFi 7. I think it is shared with other users so devices have to find free space. I think most developed countries have allocated it.

Re: Does our “need for speed” make our wi-fi suck?

#286

Post by toast0 »

econ wrote: post #281
ashdksnndck wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some friends live in a rental that they’ve decorated well. It wasn’t until multiple visits that I realized they had run Ethernet throughout the house. You can get skinny Ethernet cables that bend easily. If you get some that match your paint, and route them in straight lines, those can be unobtrusive. Use tricks like running the cables along baseboards and other trim pieces. If you really want to minimize the visual…

I use to wire houses. (Here all wires go in tubes.) The absurdity of not adding a few empty tubes for later use endlessly amazed me. I think I've done only one house where the owner wanted to be able to put speakers in every corner of every room on every floor with multiple possible locations for his stereo. Then he wanted multiple cable tv connections per room, multiple sockets for landlines, Ethernet everywhere. Th…

> I think nowadays we should have an USB socket next to each power outlet that provides both internet and extra fast charging. In reality I've never even seen such socket.

I've seen power outlets with embedded USB power adapters. I think I've seen usb ethernet adaptets with embedded USB power for like chromecasts and similar. But not both smooshed into the same outlet. It might be problematic because nobody wants to mix low voltage and high voltage together in the wall. But it's technically feasible.

> With a few small updates Android could switch off wifi and mobile networking and seamlessly switch to calling over wifi wired internet when you plug in the charging cable.

I'm not sure you need updates. I think if the adapter exposes as usb cdc-ethernet that would likely work out of the box, and there may be drivers for specific usb nics available as well; I haven't checked, but this is a thing that is used by ChromeCast devices and AndroidTV devices, so it should also work on Android. Seamlessness is maybe in the air, but if it's seamless from wifi to cellular, it should be better going from wired to something else, because wired has an unambigious and timely disconnect signal.

> Who knows, maybe the mobile phone could even be a first class citizen in the landline network.

IMHO there's less value here; the landline network has degraded and there's not really any first class citizens anymore. Few people retain landlines, and those that remain tend to be ATAs in the home; if you care to use that with an android, there's likely better options than interfacing with the analog side.

Re: Does our “need for speed” make our wi-fi suck?

#287

Post by toast0 »

lostlogin wrote: post #220
toast0 wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stick houses with hollow walls are cheaper to build (assuming cheap wood) and cheaper to work on. Probably cheaper to maintain too, but not as durable, so it might work out... Otoh, durable isn't great when housing trends have moved on.

> not as durable Your clearly don’t live in an earthquake prone area. I do. But given how cheapskate New Zealand is, I’m 100% sure that we would build in stone and brick if it was cheaper.

I do live on the west coast of the US. Unreinforced masonry doesn't do well in earthquakes, but reinforced masonry or concrete is probably more durable. I've got 25 year old wood siding, and it might make it to 30, but there's no way it'll be in reasonable shape at 40. It probably won't be too expensive to replace though.

Re: Does our “need for speed” make our wi-fi suck?

#288

Post by godelski »

silversmith wrote: post #193
godelski wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rental or do you own? If you own, you should replace and/or move them. Might sound scary if you've never done this before but it is much easier than you'd think. If you want to make your future life easier I suggest running a PVC pipe (at minimum in the drop down portion). Replacing or adding new cabling will be much easier if you do this so it's totally worth the few extra bucks and few extra minutes of work. They'l…

There are times I do envy people living in stick houses with hollow walls.

Install a veneer

Re: Does our “need for speed” make our wi-fi suck?

#289

Post by toast0 »

ssl-3 wrote: post #195
jdeibele wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We downsized from a house built in 1914 with phone jacks everywhere to a house built in 2007 with coax and ethernet ports in every room, some rooms with two. At the 1914 house, I used ethernet-over-powerline adapters so I could have a second router running in access point mode. The alternative was punching holes in the outside walls since there was no way to feasibly run cabling inside lath-and-plaster walls. I don't…

> I don't know how 2025 houses are built but I would be surprised if they didn't have an ethernet jack in every room to a wiring closet of some sort. Not sure about coax. Aye. Cat5/6/whatever-ish cabling has been both the present and the future for something on the order of 25 years now. It's as much of a no-brainer to build network wiring into a home today as it once was to build telephone and TV wiring into a home.…

Sheesh. I would expect a high end house to have ceiling mount ethernet jacks for fancy APs in most rooms. At least family room(s) and bedrooms. Very much not worth it to retrofit later in a multistory building, but would be super handy.

Re: Does our “need for speed” make our wi-fi suck?

#290

Post by ssl-3 »

robocat wrote: post #265
ssl-3 wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, splendid. I'm so glad that you have come before me today to present this bot's confounding quandary, and I receive it with tremendous glee. Please allow me to proffer the following retort: The answer to having a shitty, incapable router is to use one that is not shitty, and is capable. (The routing-bits have no clue what RF spectrum is being utilized, and never have. They just deal with packets. The packets are a…

There's no need to be rude. cycomanic knows stuff but their answer was basically contradicting chrneu, which nobody likes. It is counterintuitive to me (and I'm guessing cycomanic too) that the different bands should interact so much. The AI answers passed my shit-detector... And I think it is the same as trying to be helpful but providing a search link in the past. Other HN users can make their own decision about re…

The false supposition built into the question asked of the bot combined with the resulting answer to the bad question result in the whole thing being -- at very best -- a boondoggle of a red herring.

It's all quite well-worded, and yet is still completely unrelated to what is being discussed.

Real people: "Hey, let's talk about networks!"

Eventually: "Cool, I like networks! Did you know that down is actually up, and up is actually down? In fact, I asked a sycophant bot to demonstrate this fiction with its wily words, and it did so with with wonderful articulation. Here's a link!"

Having tolerance towards this kind of make-believe anti-truth is not something that I would consider to be a healthy human function. Especially when this nonsense has deflected through a third party that is completely absent from the discourse and isolated from the context, such as a sycophant bot, and particularly so when there's an implied appeal to authority for that absent third party.

(I have no intention of considering whether this kind of action is deliberate or not. I simply recognize this move for how consistently successful it is at poisoning a discussion amongst a group of people.)

---

If you were to ask me, a person, the following question:

> "What is the most likely reason that a cheap router/AP would slow down servicing clients on 5GHz when also servicing clients on a congested 2.4GHz spectrum"

...then I would not have responded to that question with a single confidently-stated and presumptive answer, but instead by opening a dialogue.

And I would begin this dialogue by asking about the reasons that lead you to believe that this would ever be true in the first place.

(But that's not the path that was chosen here.)

Post reply on HN